CNN has announced that "trust in government is at an all time low." Like so many CNN articles, this one makes a factual statement and then lets it lie there, undisturbed.

In fact, the article, based on a CNN poll, needlessly complicates its point by seeming to make a dual lead. The news about "trust" is noteworthy on its own, but the article deals with the anniversary of Watergate as well.

It is not clear why the two topics are related except tangentially. Watergate may have sapped the confidence of citizenry in their federal government but today's loss of trust is an entirely different matter.

Nominally, the reason that the article deals with the two subjects is because the poll itself does. And the article, based on the CNN poll, does make the point that Watergate provides a kind of dividing line both generationally and numerically when it comes to trust in government.

Before Watergate, most US citizens trusted government, CNN tells us. After Watergate, the numbers dropped to under 50 percent and have never recovered.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

CNN Poll: Trust in government at all-time low … Four decades after President Richard Nixon resigned, a slight majority of Americans still consider Watergate a very serious matter, a new national survey shows. But how serious depends on when you were born.

The CNN/ORC International poll's release comes one day before the 40th anniversary of Nixon's resignation on August 9, 1974. With the Watergate scandal escalating, the second-term Republican president had lost much of his political backing, and he faced almost certain impeachment and the prospects of being removed from office by a Democratic-dominated House and Senate.

There's a big generational divide over the significance of the scandal, with a majority of those older than 40 describing Watergate as a very serious problem and those under 40 saying it was just politics.

The poll also indicates that the public's trust in government is at an all-time low.

Just 13% of Americans say the government can be trusted to do what is right always or most of the time, with just over three-quarters saying only some of the time and one in 10 saying they never trust the government, according to the poll.

"The number who trust the government all or most of the time has sunk so low that it is hard to remember that there was ever a time when Americans routinely trusted the government," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.

"But polls conducted by the University of Michigan consistently found a majority of Americans in the 1960s and early 1970s saying that the government could be trusted all or most of the time – until Watergate. In 1972, 53% said they trusted the government always or most of the time. By 1974, that figure had plummeted to 36%, and except for a brief period of patriotic sentiment immediately after the 9/11 attacks, it has remained under 50% ever since," Holland added.

The survey indicates that skepticism doesn't stop at the White House and Capitol Hill: Only 17% of Americans believe that big business can be trusted to do what is right always or most of the time.

Absurdly, the article continues for another few paragraphs with a summary of Watergate and how it affected US confidence in government. But there's no follow-up to the jaw-dropping assertion that only 13 percent of US citizens believe government "can be trusted" to do the right thing.

These are not normal numbers. These are Soviet Union style numbers. Or numbers that might have generated from a poll of Chinese during the depth of the starvation generated by Mao's ruinous Great Leap Forward.

For the longest time, we've been told that the horrible numbers associated with US Congress – confidence is reportedly in the single digits now – must be tempered by people's affection for their OWN congress-people. But if these larger numbers are to be believed, then the lack of support for Congress must be a fairly accurate assessment of how people really feel, regardless of affiliation.

Certainly, we've been predicting this. One of our main paradigms is that the Internet Reformation is undermining elite dominant social themes that create the "directed history" consolidating world power on behalf of increased global governance.

We made these arguments when we were mocked. We made these arguments when people explained to us patiently that the power elite was all-encompassing and achievement of its globalist goals was inevitable. But we believed differently. We knew, in fact, that there would need to be several cycles under the scrutiny of alternative 'Net reporting before the duopoly of the US political system broke down, exposing the proverbial "man behind the curtain."

And of course, just recently we've seen exactly this process taking shape. After several years of denigrating the Tea Party folks and literally decades ignoring libertarian trends, the Establishment is reaching out to individuals espousing both political philosophies. This is just what happened in the 1970s and 1980s, when the establishment finally turned to Reagan – not to implement his policies but to take advantage of his persona.

The outreach is necessary because mainstream Democrats and Republicans have thoroughly defenestrated their credibility. People don't believe anymore. People don't believe that politics – and governance – can make society wealthier, freer or more secure.

Yes, blame it on the Internet. The Internet gave the US electorate (Europe was affected, too) a proverbial ringside seat from where they watched the corrupt and murderous antics of Bill and Hillary Clinton, the meretricious warmongering of George Bush and finally the implosion of the Barack Obama mythos, the man who embodied "hope and change" but has only delivered sociopolitical chaos and economic degeneration.

This is not hyperbole. This is not "conspiracy." Homeland Security is buying billions of bullets. Only 13 percent of US citizens "trust" government. And this from a CNN poll! We don't much believe in modern polling, but it seems right to us. The only quibble we have is that the number is probably less.

The spinmeisters have gone to work, of course. The predictable rebuttals should be emanating from the socialist side of the aisle, but the philosophical bankruptcy is so extensive that one of the saddest comes from the sometimes-sensible Rush Limbaugh. I'll quote it at length because it may stand, historically speaking, as a classic embodiment of a kind of … cognitive dissonance.

The following is taken from the transcript of Mr. Limbaugh's radio program. (In other words, it is not an article, but part of his larger on-air commentary.)

RUSH: CNN, another poll: "Trust in Government at All-Time Low." (interruption) What did you say? (interruption) Great news? It's maybe not great news. Well, this is why I'm bringing it up first. It may not be good news. Trust in government, yeah, if that's what it remains, but what if, as we have seen is the case with a lot of young people who voted for Obama, they're not blaming him; they're blaming America. The American dream is over. The salad days are behind us. It's not faith in government, really, that's being questioned or falling. It's the country.

That's what worries me. That's why this cannot be allowed to result in a distrust of America and its founding principles, and believe me, there are all kinds of people that want to take advantage of a poll like this. "Trust in Government at All-Time Low." They say, "Well, see, America is just not made for life in 2014. America needs to change."

"The poll also indicates that the public's trust in government is at an all-time low. Just 13% of Americans say the government can be trusted to do what is right always or most of the time, with just over three-quarters saying only some of the time and one in 10 saying they never trust the government, according to the poll. 'The number who trust the government all or most of the time has sunk so low that it is hard to remember that there was ever a time when Americans routinely trusted the government,'" said the CNN polling director.

Now, as I say, there's both opportunity and danger here. An opposition party grounded by conservative principles would be a good thing, presenting an alternative. Make sure that this distrust in government does not become distrust or disbelief in the country. But believe me there are people out there that are gonna be making that happen, or trying to make that happen.

Well, count us among those endorsing "disbelief." We're not sure what country Limbaugh is referring to. There are actually five or six cultures that make up the US – and probably many more, perhaps hundreds. A country is an artificial "thing" – lines on a map.

So, what Limbaugh is really talking about is his own somewhat fantastical creation: the "Conservative Republic." This involves a strong military-industrial complex, a hyper-moralistic domestic regime and a fiscal and monetary system that supports entrepreneurialism.

We're all for the last part of Mr. Limbaugh's phantasmagoria, but even here, you'll never hear him discuss the fundamental issues, which involve the judiciary mandate of corporate personhood. Get rid of corporate personhood and there would be a lot more opportunity for entrepreneurs as multinationals began to shrink and the unholy marriage of corporatism and monopoly central banking began to whither.

Limbaugh never deals directly with monopoly central banking. The ability of a few good, gray men to fix the price and value of money on a monthly and sometimes daily basis leads to tremendous faux booms and ruinous busts.

Of course, the "harmless, loveable little fuzzball" – as he calls himself – is constrained by advertisers and beset by spokespeople for the mainstream GOP. Perhaps this is why he never mentions that when the GOP has occasionally developed a majority of Congress to go along with an executive in the White House, the results have been dismal.

Sorry, Rush. There simply is not going to be a "conservative" epiphany in the US today. It will never happen. The ramifications of a 13 percent metric when it comes to support of the US and its economic and sociopolitical systems are profound. No country can remain the same with such numbers.

Internationalists are attempting to handle the fallout of the Internet Reformation by setting up false-flag dialectics and by isolating and radicalizing dangerous arguments and factions. But these are 20th century solutions. The Internet is a process, not an episode. Every time a "threat" is dealt with, another arises. As time goes on these threats multiply and expand. Nothing stops them.

What top globalists are counting on now, apparently, is the evolution of general chaos that distracts people and lays the groundwork for further top-down international solutions. My perspective is that even this tried and true methodology is not going to be effective, either. When Rome fell, after all, it fell hard. There was no "after" – or not in terms of a recovery of the Empire. Once lost, it was not to be found again, or not for hundreds of years.

Human action is a necessary corollary of a 13-percent confidence factor. Whether it is taking advantage of the current Wall Street Party, purchasing money metals, farmland or second residences abroad, people need to do as much as possible to protect themselves, their loved ones, friends and local communities.

The warning light is blinking. Only the timing is in doubt, not the inevitable evolution of plunging confidence numbers. Hear the sirens sound?

Righto. The moral and economic principles underlying western civilization are alive in the hearts of ordinary men. We will rebuild.

jackw97224

There is always a remnant and that is why the politicians are fearless as they believe that no matter what they do, most of the time they will not be beheaded but will live comfortably long after they have sent the boys off as cannon fodder.

War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today. ~ John F. Kennedy

I don’t see how anyone has the right to take a vote to sanction the politicians to use lethal force against you to control your person and property. I don’t see that as a right, I see it as a crime. SS, Medicare and the obumma/pelosi “Final Solution” Health Care Schemes of looting A to satisfy B are criminal impostions by politicians. Allowing emotions to interfere with reason is not acceptable.

jackw97224

One more thing, you might enjoy the following, if you have not already seen them:

The simplest way to gut politician, judge or IRS agent of his false perception of legitimacy is to just ask a couple of questions. One of the most effective is:

If I did business like you government types, and I forced people to give me money, would you consider me a criminal? (Marc Steven NoStateProject)

The psychopaths or sociopaths calling themselves governments really hate this question. And with good reason; they don’t have to vocally answer the question for everyone to know the answer. There is no spinning it away.

Another question is:

What factual evidence do you (judge, IRS agent, politician or other) have that your constitution and “laws” apply to me just because I am physically present in some geographical location? (Marc Steven NoStateProject)

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed
lamb contesting the vote.” — Benjamin Franklin

The 1928 US Army Training Manual on Citizenship explains that Democracy leads to mobocracy. Now replace
Democracy with mobocracy in the following slogans: The US will Make the World Safe for Democracy and The US is the Arsenal of Democracy.

“The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that
end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words,
government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.” ~ H.L. Mencken

“The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” (Barak Obama) Yeah, tell it to the criminal IRS, Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, Chuck Schumer, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Leslie Marshall, Harry Reid
and that commie/socialist cadre of criminals and liars. “I got a pen and a phone,” hears a thought, “Do something.” And remember, I,I,I I’m just tellin’ the truth now I, I, I don’t have to run for office again. (so he admitted he and his cadre of commie/socialists previously lied…heh, heh, heh…so many lies, so many gaffes so little time left to terminated him)

Gresham’s Law: Bad money drives out good

Triffin’s Dilemma: Industry is destroyed at the source of money creation

Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie. — Russian Proverb

Molon Labe – come and take (should be the motto of politicians and their thugs in the IRS)

“Everyone understood that the union of the states was voluntary and that, as Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York
stated in their constitutional ratification documents, [note: not in their actual constitutions] each state had a right to
withdraw from the union at some future date if that union became harmful to its interests.” – The Jeffersonian Secessionist Tradition – Thomas DiLorenzo 7-5-2014, http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/07/thomas-dilorenzo/jefferson-was-right-5/

The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.” – Thomas Sowell

Praetor

Well imagine that, low percentage trust the monster called government, is that not close to the percentage of people whom work for the monster. They had better trust their employer or their out in the streets with the rest of us mongrel dogs to look for scraps through from the windows of the state houses, that place call congress and the largest center of corruption on earth the white house. So, those whom work for the monster had better be wary of trusting their master it may turn on you next.
Thanks, Mr. Wile for this great forum to discuss the public issues of these days. It is the public square of our day.

t. man hatter

Great article. Both of these parties are bankrupt. You are on your own. Get use to it.
financialspuds.blogspot.com

Just to set the record straight, Nixon was a pretty good president. JFK got us into Viet Nam. Nixon got us out. He was supposedly impeached for lying about the date that he found out about the Watergate break in. Just the date, nothing more.
On July 11, 1971, the British ambassador informed that Britain was taking delivery of 1/3 of the U.S. gold supply. On July 15, 1971, Nixon stopped gold exchanges for American currency. The British bankers got stiffed for tons of gold. The bankers had to make it clear who ran the show. Nixon got the axe for that.

Arationofreason

Some conspiratorial declarations say that JFK may have been killed because he tried to keep us out of Viet Nam. Johnson definitely declared the ‘police action’ after the Golf of Tonkin kabuki by the military.

fenwick’s in the manger

Personally, and certainly not scientifically, I think you can bring the 13% down, closer to 8%. There are a lot of US citizens that refuse to answer polls for fear of government reprisal [signing petitions, voter registration, donating to a 3rd party, etc], that know the government is not only an entity not to be trusted but know the incredible criminality of it.

jackw97224

Oh I think if the querries are done in depth then the number drops to ZERO!

Bolt Upright

Why would one trust people that take a cut of your blood sweat and tears away from you? All the while they are taking your productivity, they tell you they are the best thing that ever happened to you?… the 13% must have been government moles in the survey.

Jim Kluttz

Wait. The poll shows that nearly 90% of respondents trust the government to do the right thing some of the time or most of the time. Where’s the good news in that?

“The poll also indicates that the public’s trust in government is at an all-time low … Just 13% of Americans say the government can be trusted to do what is right always or most of the time.”

The trend is clear; people don’t trust government and that lack of trust has been growing to the point where government programs and solutions are obviously looked upon with considerable skepticism. For a country like the US, that is highly socialized and corporatized, this is a big problem. Only one in four young people plan on voting in the US, according to fairly recent polls. The so-called Millennial generation has tuned out as well …

RED

I have followed Rush for some time now, and he appears to be a clear thinker with good policitical insight. It is my perception that he correctly despises the “Left” which is the origin of Soicialism / Nazisim / Maoism / Stalinism / Communism / Fascism, etc. that have created so much oppression and human suffering across the world. He also despises what he calls the “County Club – Blue Blood” Republicans that currently still make up the majority of the Republican party.
He articulated in detail the exact motives and outcome of “obamination care” well before Mr. Soetoro was elected the first time; and it has come to pass (although I know that many others had this same foresight as well).
He appears to be a staunch supporter of Free enterprise and open free markets……although I agree that he has not addressed the issue of the Federal Reserve and its role in the destruction of free markets (or at least I have not heard him do so). I did not hear the remarks to which you refer in this editorial, but I suspect that he is not a supporter of the “Industrial Military Complex” as many of us perceive it.
The “Left” has incrementally corrupted this country’s educational institutions and culture over several decades, and I routinely advocate Resistance / Push-back / Corrective Action at every opportunity making use of the same incremental methodology if necessary. I would much prefer a faster process, but I’m not certain who would control the outcome of some of the alternative actions.
Much of what I have learned here at the DB has provided me with the resources to properly educate my children to take issue with highschool “educators” who have been indoctrinated with Keynesian economics. This has also served them well in their early college years.
I would very much like to read an interview of Rush Limbaugh conducted by the Daily Bell…….It might be Very Instructive ……..do you think you can swing it? 🙂
In any event….take care……watch your back…….thrive and prosper (If for no other reason than to just piss of the left).

What he can say, unfortunately, is constrained by his business model. And, no, it is very doubtful he’d do an interview with us. Sorry.

jackw97224

Indeed, looking into the Fed and its origins would conflict with his sponsors and the “can of worms,” so opened, would expose the utter criminality and hypocrisies of many who clearly don’t want the exposure.

What is crazy about that, Jack, is it is going to be exposed anyway. Maha Rushie is going to be exposed as tool of the elite. A scumbag of the highest order. To me, Rush Limbaugh, made a fatal error by making a career of obfuscation. Sure he made $millions, but what good are $millions if history records him as a fake? He is 90% truth and 10% lies. Those 10% lies make him a scumbag. A historical scumbag. There was a time in the late 80s and early 90s when I thought he was heaven sent to expose the truth. I personally feel taken advantage of by the Golden Microphone. Rush Limpbaugh is a scumbag in my book and always will be.

Hey You

No, Limbaugh is an entertainer not a commentator. He made big money by saying some things that are semi-true and has gotten some non-thinkers to consider some political excesses.

Rush Limbaugh has made a lot of money telling lies from the Golden Microphone. 90% truth and 10% lies. A good gig if you can get it and don’t mind being the stooge of the 21st century. Limpbaugh will go down in history as a disgrace.

jackw97224

Well, I don’t call Rush a scoundrel. I think most people lie and if it is 10% of the time, that ain’t bad. We have 3 branches of government that lie 90% of the time (IMHO); 3 out of three is very bad, it is criminal (you know, Independence Day, wherein Jack Nicholson even said, 2 out of 3 (branches of gov.) isn’t bad). If only he knew the real truth. My list of disgraceful politicians is long and Limbaugh doesn’t come close. Politicians have got millions slaughtered and caused economic misery for 10’s of millions or even 100’s of millions.
Hey emotions get in my way, too. It took years to shed the indoctrination, propaganda and brainwashing about the heroics of Lincoln, Wilson, FDR et.al. I never got balance from government schools. Ha! Go figure. Conflicts of interest?

I was never lied to about Lincoln, Wilson, or FDR. I have done my own study on those men. I was lied to about the Federal Reserve System. If Rush Limbaugh would spend one week talking about the counterfeiting practices of the Federal Reserve System, then the whole world would change in a hurry. But we never hear about that fundamental problem of dishonest money from the Golden Microphone.

jackw97224

Yes, Rush hasn’t and will not take on the criminality of the Fed and I wandered away from his program long ago, though pehaps twice a year I tune in to his programl.
Yes, Rush does not appear to support the Milky Way Industrial Complex.
Yes, the commie/socialist MSM and a majority of educators (IMHO based on very small sampling) have infected and infested government and schools.
And yes, I too would like to see the Daily Bell interview Rush.
Good posting.

Ernie Hopkins

As usual very good piece!!! Tweeted to 4K+! The process continues lol!

There might just be more people awake that I even thought might be, but that helps solidify why gun sales are up and crime is headed the other way steady as she goes!

The Terrorism Statistics Every American Needs to Hear, May 19, 2014

Calm Down … You Are Much More Likely to Be Killed By Boring, Mundane Things than Terrorism McClatchy reported in 2010: There were just 25 U.S. noncombatant fatalities from terrorism worldwide. (The US government definition of terrorism excludes attacks on U.S. military personnel). While we don’t have the figures at hand, undoubtedly more American citizens died overseas from traffic accidents or intestinal illnesses than from terrorism.

Personal Privacy Is Only One of the Costs of NSA Surveillance 07.29.14

There is no doubt the integrity of our communications and the privacy of our online activities have been the biggest casualty of the NSA’s unfettered surveillance of our digital lives. But the ongoing revelations of government eavesdropping has had a profound impact on the economy, the security of the internet and the credibility of the U.S. government’s leadership when it comes to online governance.

I never hear any so called ” TALK SHOW HOSTS ” mention The Federal Reserve or Corporatism both acts of evil !!!

jackw97224

Well, the upcoming November elections would be a golden opportunity for those who vote to dump all the candidates from the
major political parties and vote for a Tea Party candidate. It would kind of be like a trial balloon, not much to lose and lots to gain. This is the time for some real change and a great adventure. It would take some courage to vote for the Tea Party candidates but the past performance of major party politicians is dismal at best and criminal generally.

Don Duncan

If the 87% boycott the vote, then we will know they know what action is effective against an untrustworthy institution. If they vote, they are showing they still believe, they still have faith that govt. can be fixed. This is probably the case. For most, the ungoverned, i.e., the voluntary society, is unthinkable. For most, that would be chaos.

Fortunately, we don’t have to wait for most to leave the matrix. When 10+% join us the idea of a free society starts to become “thinkable”. If and when that happens, there is no turning back, even with a false flag event occurring.

jackw97224

Well, the “lamps” of freedom and justice and honesty and independence and responsibility started to flicker when Lincoln got nearly 1 million Americans killed in his Civil War. Some lamps winked off when Wilson followed with his provocations, propaganda, indoctrinations and brainwashings to get America into WW I. Many more lamps died when FDR followed with his provocations of Japan that were aimed at getting them to attack. Oh, and the FDR et.al. commie/socialist, social welfare, social justice crap of SS, Medicare and now the obumma/pelosi “Final Solution” Health Care Scheme founded on government/politician/judges loot A to satisfy B criminality, have killed more “lamps” such that there are just a few “lamps” of freedom remaining lit.

I would like to correct this historical inaccuracy. Lincoln did not get nearly 1 million people killed in the Civil War. Jefferson Davis did that. Jefferson Davis was a lifelong warmonger, West Point graduate, escort to prison for Black Hawk for his wanting to keep his land, hero of the Mexican-American war (which Lincoln protested), former Secretary of War, former Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, and a slave owning tyrant.

History proves, that prior to April 12, 1861, when Jefferson Davis opted to wage war on the Union by bombarding Union soldiers in Fort Sumter for 36 hours, a defensive fort, which was off the coast of South Carolina, and had been officially deeded to the Union by South Carolina, which Davis was specifically told by a messenger from Abraham Lincoln, on April 8, 1861, that the only purpose of the expedition was to supply hungry Union soldiers with food and blankets, and not surrender the Union, Abraham Lincoln was a peaceful family man. People please read: Speeches and Letters of Abraham Lincoln 1832 to 1865. Abraham Lincoln never wanted war in the first place. He was a peaceful family man all his life until after the bombing concluded at Fort Sumter.

Clearly, the Confederates were the aggressors in the Civil War. It is clear as day by reading historical documents. Article IV of the Confederate Constitution denied the most basic human rights to people of dark skin. They denied that African Americans were even human beings with any human rights whatsoever. Read it for yourself: Confederate Constitution. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp#a4

If a man hits you in the face with his fist, do you have the right to defend yourself? If, after starting the fight, which you get beat up, do you have the right to go home to Mama and claim that a bully beat you up? For 150 years? Why not just live and let live?

jackw97224

If you read the factual history, Lincoln was not opposed to slavery; he only selfishly determined to
maintain the “union” in the face of factual evidence that he was denying the Declaration of Independence and the colonies of New York, Virginia and Rhode Island who asserted that they could secede if the central government went the wrong direction.

I was propagandized, indoctrinated and brainwashed with the Lincoln “halo” of righteousness. I finally shed that fallacy of Lincoln supremacy long after escaping the government school system and commenced reading and studying the truths that had been concealed by those with an agenda to maintain the secrecy of the awful nature of Lincoln’s desire to compel behavior according to his opinions.

Really Jack? Maybe if you took the time to read what Lincoln wrote and said all his life you would not make such outrageous claims. Click on the link. It is free if you have a Kindle.

Lincoln was opposed to slavery all his life, calling it an unqualified evil on many occasions, and he spoke out against slavery all his life making his first public statement against slavery all the way back in 1837. Lincoln was consistent and persistent about making his position on slavery known to everyone until he was killed.

“If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.-why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?-

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest; you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.”

“The Republican party, on the contrary, hold that this government was instituted to secure the blessings of freedom, and that slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro, to the white man, to the soil, and to the State. Regarding it an evil, they will not molest it in the States where it exists; they will not overlook the constitutional guards which our forefathers have placed around it; they will do nothing which can give proper offence to those who hold slaves by legal sanction; but they will use every constitutional method to prevent the evil from becoming larger and involving more negroes, more white men, more soil, and more States in its deplorable consequences. They will, if possible, place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate peaceable extinction, in God’s own good time.” – Abraham Lincoln – September 11, 1858

Lincoln’s devotion to the “Declaration of Independence” can not be better stated than by Lincoln himself in an impromptu speech just a week before he swore the oath of office of President for the first time.

Speech at Independence Hall

Abraham Lincoln
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
February 22, 1861

Mr. Cuyler: – I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing here in the place where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to our distracted country. I can say in return, sir, that all the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated, and were given to the world from this hall in which we stand.

I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. (Great cheering.) I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here and adopted that Declaration of Independence – I have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army, who achieved that Independence. (Applause.) I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the colonies from the mother land; but something in that Declaration giving liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but hope to the world for all future time. (Great applause.) It was that which gave promise that in due time the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance. (Cheers.) This is the sentiment embodied in that Declaration of Independence.

Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world if I can help to save it. If it can’t be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But, if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle – I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than to surrender it. (Applause.)

Now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs, there is no need of bloodshed and war. There is no necessity for it. I am not in favor of such a course, and I may say in advance, there will be no blood shed unless it be forced upon the Government. The Government will not use force unless force is used against it. (Prolonged applause and cries of “That’s the proper sentiment.”)

My friends, this is a wholly unprepared speech. I did not expect to be called upon to say a word when I came here – I supposed I was merely to do something towards raising a flag. I may, therefore, have said something indiscreet, (cries of “no, no”), but I have said nothing but what I am willing to live by, and, in the pleasure of Almighty God, die by.”

jackw97224

Lincoln was not opposed to slavery his entire life. I appreciate your intellect but on this issue you are mistaken. http://www.lib.niu.edu/1997/ihy970225.html
And you cannot deny that the colonists would have put their necks under the heel of Lincoln or any other pretender and tyrant. The first paragraph of the Declaration was trashed by Lincoln.
Your excuses are not worthy of your intellect. There is not such thing as a “good” excuse. Lincoln, for all his intelligence and scholarly achievement was in the end a scoundrel for allowing emotions and corruption of reason to overide logic and history that should have prevailed. He got nearly a million Americans slaughtered and all he had to say, as Winfield Scott said: Wayward sisters, depart in peace. And slavery would have vanished as machines took over and the industrial revolution flowered.

Jack, you really do have to stop reading the views of others on Lincoln and read his own words for yourself if you want to know what was on Lincoln’s mind. Lincoln was indeed opposed to slavery all his life. As a matter of fact, he considered himself a slave of sorts, when he was young, as his father sold Abe’s labor and kept all his earnings for the family until Abe was emancipated at age 21. He knew exactly what slavery was like.

This Jamie Schaefer, to which you linked, like many other authors, is pulling your chain.

You have to quit reading the words of others and read Lincoln’s words for yourself unless you want to be fooled all your life. Abe was 7 years old when they moved from Kentucky to Indiana. He had no say in that move at all. The Kentucky experience had almost nothing to do with his anti-slavery belief. His staunch anti-slavery beliefs were formed later in life.

When he made his second river trip down the Mississippi River, selling wares along the way, as a young man, he witnessed a slave auction and whipping posts in New Orleans. That experience played a major role in Lincoln’s anti-slavery views. He remained anti-slavery the rest of his life.

That quote at the Lincoln-Douglas debate at Charleston, IL on September 18, 1858, taken out-of-context, fools a lot of people. It is used over and over again … out-of-context. Lincoln had been accused, by Stephen Douglas, in a political debate, of wanting racial equality in 1858, in front of thousands of potential voters. There was 12,000 people in Charleston that day.

Read the rest of the speech. Lincoln’s main point, when that speech is read in-context, is that Lincoln did not believe that the Federal government had any business at all in dealing with the issue of slavery, or equality of the races, whatsoever. Those were State’s rights issues. But one must read the speech in-context to understand what Lincoln really said.

“I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State Legislature-not in the Congress of the United States-and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure.” – Abraham Lincoln – September 18, 1858

Jamie again pulls your chain with her interpretation of the Emancipation Proclamation.

“This proclamation was designed to maintain a balance in the nation so the border states, which had slavery, but were still part of the Union, would remain loyal.” – Jamie Schaefer

That is nonsense. If you read Lincoln’s words for yourself, then you would know that the Emancipation Proclamation was a military move. He gained 130,000 black soldiers for the Union when they were desperately needing soldiers. Those black soldiers were instrumental in winning the war and freeing their posterity. As President, Lincoln did not have the authority to free the slaves in the border States. Freeing slaves in the Union required an amendment to the Constitution. The Confederates had claimed to be another country. Lincoln did not care about the legality of freeing slaves in foreign countries. But one must read Lincoln’s words for themselves to know what was going on in Lincoln’s mind.

Jack, I do read factual history. I read the words of Abraham Lincoln, the words of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, the words of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, the U.S. Constitution, the Confederate Constitution, the words of Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, the words of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, both his retirement from the U.S. Senate and his address to the Confederate States of America upon ratification, (which he outright lied to his Congress), and the words of one of the most treasonous men America has ever known … Robert E. Lee. I read their words for content not confirmation.

rahrog

Abe Lincoln was a tyrant and mass murderer who believed a central government was more important than individual rights. Jeff Davis was a tyrant and mass murderer who believed a central government was more important than individual rights. Which flavor of cool aid do you prefer?

“Abe Lincoln was a tyrant and mass murderer who believed a central government was more important than individual rights.” – rahrog

No he wasn’t. Abraham Lincoln was anti-slavery all his life. In other words, Abraham Lincoln was pro-liberty all his life. He wasn’t a fighter. Lincoln was a peaceful man as long as those around him remained peaceful. When he was 19, he and a friend floated a raft down the Mississippi River selling wares along the way and did not have to collect any taxes. Lincoln was a total free market liberty loving peaceful man because he lived it. He found himself at war when pro-slavery (anti-liberty) forces waged war to destroy the Union, established by our founding fathers, with the intent to nationalize slavery (SLAVERY).

Lincoln never wanted war and he did everything he could think of to avoid war. He never wanted a strong central government any more than most people of his day. The transcontinental railroad was written into every political platform in 1860. The internal improvements Lincoln advocated was written into every political party platform even in the Confederate Constitution.

Folks, Ludwig von Mises held himself to the highest standards of ethics. Holding oneself to the highest standards of ethics is the only way to move forward. When people make false claims against Lincoln by taking his words out-of-context, then the entire movement becomes discredited. If people in the liberty movement are not going to be truthful about Abraham Lincoln then why should anyone take them seriously about anything. They shouldn’t.

That’s not the point. The point is that one learns who another one is by reading their words. “Actions speak louder than words” is only true if one actually understands their actions in the context of the situation. Those who misunderstand Lincoln’s actions misunderstand Abraham Lincoln.

I maintain that, as President, Lincoln had a right and sworn duty to defend Washington against Confederate aggression and to protect the free blacks in Washington from re-enslavement. The duty of President is to enforce the law.

rahrog

You could not be more wrong. One learns a person’s character by watching their actions. Words are cheap. People have a natural right to form governments as they see fit. People have a duty to take action when confronted with tyrannical governments. As for Lincoln “enforcing the law”, just what law are you talking about?

What law? The law of liberty. That is the sworn duty of the President. To defend liberty.

You don’t seem to understand that the Confederate Army held Washington in siege for several months before the first battle at Bull Run. On April 12, 1861, while the Confederate Army was bombarding the Union soldiers in Fort Sumter, who had been held in siege for many months, the Confederate Secretary of War predicted that the Confederate flag would be flying over the capitol building in Washington by the first of May. When Lincoln understood that the Confederate Army was planning on marching to Washington to kick him out of office and re-enslave the free blacks, he had a duty to defend Washington from invasion. He called-up the militia units to defend Washington against invasion by Jefferson Davis.

Davis had mistakenly believed that Lincoln did not have the authority to call-up the militia because that power was written in Article I. He thought that only Congress had the power to call-up the militia and Congress was not in session at the time. Jefferson Davis thought he was going to be able to march to Washington without any resistance, kick Lincoln out, and take over as President.

“Jefferson Davis planned to be living in the White House by May 1, according to the plans of his wife, Varina. On April 17th, New York insurance executive William Holdredge wrote Secretary of State William H. Seward in exasperation, informing him that the “wife of the Rebel President Davis has had the imprudence to send cards to her lady acquaintances at the Saint Nicholas” – a favorite New York hotel for visiting Southerners – “inviting them to attend her reception in the White House at Washington on the first of May.”

“On April 12, 1861 only hours after Confederate guns opened fire on Fort Sumter in the Charleston harbor, Confederate Secretary of War Leroy P. Walker appeared before a jubilant crowd in Montgomery, Alabama. “No man can tell when the war this day commenced will end,” Walker thundered from the balcony of the Exchange Hotel, at the heart of the Confederate capitol, “but I will prophesy that the flag which now floats the breeze here will float over the dome of the old capitol at Washington before the first of May.”

So, my question to you, if you believe that actions speak louder than words, is: What ACTIONS did Lincoln take BEFORE being attacked by an aggressive enemy do you not approve?

At the end of World War One, the Kaiser reminded his generals of their sacred oath sworn directly to him and they told him it meant nothing anymore.

Such are just words in the face of murder and genocide, both of which Lincoln participated in.

Lincoln didn’t have the right to censor, imprison and torture.

He had no “sacred duty” to accept the presidency. He didn’t have advance his own ambition.
He didn’t have to dragoon Irishmen in New York into his federal army.
He didn’t have to decimate the South.
He didn’t have to kill millions.
He didn’t have to burn cities and apparently take pleasure in it.

He succeeded in little but in setting a precedent for tyranny.

Look what has happened as a result of his actions. He speeded up the corporatization and militarization of the US that you claim to disdain.

He is responsible for the beginning of the centralization of US power in Washington. He is responsible for the alternative money system that later became the Fed. He is responsible for the beginnings of what later become the current graduated income tax.

It was all so unnecessary. Had Southern officials marched into Washington and tried to take over the North, that fruitless endeavor would have been overturned sooner or later – and perhaps states’ rights would have been preserved. And US-style slavery would have died anyway sooner or later. (though Lord knows slavery still exists in the world …)

As for “reading his words” – one can make the same case for politicians throughout history. Almost always their words are far more noble than their deeds. Barack Obama speaks eloquently. Eloquence in politics has little to do with reality.

You blame Lincoln for all sorts of stuff he had no control over. Corporatism came years after his death. None of those changes would have been possible if the Confederates hadn’t waged war on the Union. Sure, Lincoln could have stayed in Springfield and just let the Union disintegrate, but that would not have solved anything either. Abolitionists would have continued to steal slaves and the Confederates would have retaliated by closing off the Mississippi River trade route. It was all so unnecessary. What is important for everyone to understand is that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery. The Civil War was fought to destroy the Union and nationalize slavery.

One truth that comes out of the Civil War is that even though the Confederate Army was stronger, better armed, at first, and more able than the militia units. The militia units were successful in defending Washington against invasion.

Edwin Vieira makes the point in The Purse & The Sword that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is the model we should be looking at today to defend liberty.

You don’t seem to understand that Lincoln was not “enforcing” any law. Furthermore, you don’t seem to understand that the world would be a better place if the Federal Government of America had lost the war. Now get out of the past, and go bomb Iraq – again.

Danny B

“The latest of these signs came on 5
August 2014 in a report from Gallup Analytics (by subscription only)
headlined “Russians’ Confidence in Many Institutions Reaches All-Time
High.” Especially sharp has been the rise in “Confidence in national
government,” which was only 39% in 2013 prior to the overthrow by Obama
in February 2014 of Ukraine’s government which had been friendly to
Russia, but which confidence-level stands now at 64%”
“Confidence in the “honesty of elections” has risen from a very low 23% in 2013 to 39% today”
“Remarkably, more Russians than ever
before, 65%, answer “Yes” when asked “are you satisfied … with your
freedom to choose what you do with your life?”http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/09/374700/obamas-war-against-russia-backfires/

Ken Rogers

Both Messrs. Wile and Limbaugh struggle to keep from conflating the “country”, the American people, with the US government. The poll asked about confidence in the government, not about confidence in the country as a whole.

Wile: “The ramifications of a 13% metric when it comes to support of the US and its sociopolitical systems are profound.”

Limbaugh: “It’s not faith in government, really, that’s being questioned or falling. It’s the country.”

(Will someone please direct me, by the way, to the evidence that Limbaugh is “sometimes sensible”? I must have missed it.)

It may just be the case that 87% of the American people distrust the Financial-Military-Industrial Complex that likes to refer to itself as the US Government, as it extorts the wealth and endangers the lives of the American people.

Imagine that.

May the scales fall from the eyes of the remaining 13%.

Hey You

Seems.that the excesses and overreach of those who run governments are being revealed for what they are. That is, governments exist for both ideological reasons and personal gain objectives. There is no real activities which benefit the residents in any large political entity.
The question is why people ever gave political power to people who very much desired such power. The bloody twentieth century should have been enough to show first hand that large, centralized governments were dangerous. The solution to crimes by governmental people is to reside in small, decentralized political entities. No, that’s not a perfect solution to crime by people in control of governments, but could go a long way in improving the present situation with which we are saddled.

Don

Mr Limbaugh supports the Fed because the Fed’s his daddy. Limbaugh owes his $400 million 2008 payday to Fed juice on Wall Street. It’s all there in Stockman’s book, _The Great Deformation_

“Clear Channel Communications: Debt Zombie on a ‘Stick’

In May 2008 Bain Capital and Thomas Lee saw fit to pay fourteen times operating income for a company that was the communications industry equivalent of the proverbial buggy-whip maker. Clear Channel Communications, in fact, had been a speculator par excellence in the humble business of owning what were called radio “sticks,” or FCC licenses, to operate AM and FM radio stations.

By the time of its $23 billion LBO, it owned 850 radio stations, and it could not be gainsaid that radio stations were profitable. During 2007 Clear Channel had generated about $1.6 billion of operating income, a figure which amounted to a healthy 24.1 percent of its $6.8 billion in net revenues.

Thus, the deal sponsors did not hesitate to pile on debt, pushing the company’s borrowings from $5 billion to $20 billion in order to fund an $18 billion payday for the current stockholders. This massive debt load was readily raised, however, because radio “sticks” were a favored offspring of the Greenspan bubble era.

Due to abundant and increasingly cheaper debt financing, LBO operators large and small had driven the value of radio sticks steadily higher, from less than $8 per pop (population served) to nearly $20 per pop at the peak in 2007-2008. At that point deals were being valued not on their operating income, but on their resale value; that is, based on stick flipping.

Accordingly, Clear Channel’s $23 billion LBO reflected the trading value of its massive collection of sticks and billboards, not the company’s operating income which had increased at only a prosaic 4.5 percent rate during the four years ending in 2007, and even much of that was due to acquisitions. The magic value gains of radio sticks, however, rested on a double helping of bubble finance; that is, consumer advertising growth and cheap debt.”

For the sake of their own health, it seems to me that entertainers who want to remain out of the powers-that-be’s line-of-sight need to support either the Warfare State or the Welfare State. Mr Limbaugh obviously supports the Warfare State.

Paul_Morphy

Oddly enough, approximately 13% of the population works for the government.

And yet complacency, along with silent complicity, reigns……… “just don’t take away my job and my nightly TV and you can do whatever you want” seems to be the order of the day and likely to continue for some time.

ThomasJK

It is indeed the very low information Citizen who places trust, explicit or implicit, in “our” despotic rent-seeking financialist controlled Federal Government. Those who place any trust of any kind in the things that are said by politicians when they are in “campaign mode”, which is just about all the time, are even more likely to be betrayed and led down the primrose path of promises to oblivian.

rahrog

The 13% (I love that number) poll talked about here is just another example of why some of The American People need to SECEDE from the fedgov and establish new societies with governments of their own choosing – or just watch TV while the empire burns around them.

Bill Ross

I have always opined that those who state: “trust me” to be either insulting my intelligence, or attempting to defraud me.

So, I also don’t say “trust me”, out of respect for those I deal with. Its either “watch what I DO and, make up your OWN mind” or, THINK about the “issues” under discussion:

Can we take a moment to appreciate great writing? (a rare thing indeed)

First, hats off to Mr. Wile for using the words “tangentially” and “phantasmagoria” and for writing this line, which reads like music:

“The outreach is necessary because mainstream Democrats and Republicans have thoroughly defenestrated their credibility.”

and this — (which encapsulates three decades worth of Presidential history in a single sentence)

“The Internet gave the US electorate (Europe was affected, too) a proverbial ringside seat from where they watched the corrupt and murderous antics of Bill and Hillary Clinton, the meretricious warmongering of George Bush and finally the implosion of the Barack Obama mythos, the man who embodied “hope and change” but has only delivered sociopolitical chaos and economic degeneration.”

Not only is Mr. Wile’s analysis here spot-on (and somewhat amusing), but his writing is truly a pleasure to read.

…More, please!

Alice Maxwell

It appears that the “White Flag” is being hung everywhere. The USA is no more because no one wants it any more….oh maybe 13% will come to its defense but that is it!
Talk about throwing in the towel, well, why not! It is obvious that Americans are into new things so why discuss old things. The world has gone tech and the internet will solve all problems because so many geniuses are hitting the keys or texting great ideas that will mean great solutions for all!
That is music to the ears of those who oppose the world as it has been created since WWII. The new world has eliminated its religions and we need no rudder to steer with. We are expanding into space and the universe requires a new order since contacting other beings will bring great advances still unknown to us. Our mission has left our earthly prison and entered into the great light that can illuminate the black abyss!
Wonderful. The fiction writers have changed us all with their Hollywood and Bollywood epics and our political leaders are basking in their ability to lead us in new directions. And our many musicians have given us magnificent refrains with which to march to our new destinies.
However, there are a billion people on this earth who do not believe in anything we do and they are unifying under a banner they call Islam. They are not confused as to their future and not convulsed with love for the universe, the great expansion of space that our earth careens in. Instead, they believe in an absolute. Allah is the creative force and Man is nothing but Allah’s. Man rules only because Allah allows those who believe in Allah and has sent the last prophet to tell us what we must do to gain favor with Allah, show us our ultimate fate! Allah has armies marching now to enforce Allah in one half of the world and soon will be fielding them in the other half.
While you pontificate your future with nothing but Austrian economics to lead you, the Islamists are taking more territory. They have begun their assault on Europe, instigating violence in the small cities in Germany, France, in Spain, what is left of Jugoslavia and the leaders in those countries urge all citizens to stay put in their houses and this too will pass! As unemployment mounts, the Islamists come in and offer to build megamosques and pay for the construction. The youths flock to this source of wealth, They work and they learn about Islam, how Man is Allah’s agent on earth, how they can enjoy all their earthly inclinations regardless of how cruel or exotic they are and even how to murder in excruciating ways!
Talk about power trips….Allah’s inducement to male youth is extraordinary and it works. Where youth is stranded without purpose or worth, they are attracted to this new possibility. They are rising up wherever populations are aging, since it is obvious there can be little opposition from oldsters now settling into their first taste of retirement, no more work!
You complain about economic malaise, well you are about to see onslaughts for which there is no economic reply. You may congratulate yourself on your libertarianism, your knowledge of the way things should be but that is no defense against the primitive youth in action!

Myron Goodrum

Another bull’s eye Anthony…clarity for the fuzzy life of Limbaugh’s American dream.

Well, I hope it’s true that the internet is expanding awareness, but in case it’s not (partly because it has so much partial and mis-information that there may be more confusion instead) I wouldn’t worry too much. The “ring side seats” that provided insights into the Clinton antics, G. Bush war mongering, and the implosion of Obama’s mythos were all pretty obvious even to people like me who didn’t have internet access until 2009. (Besides, why didn’t the internet expose Obama BEFORE he was elected – twice – instead of just documenting the obvious?).

Anyway, moving on, I consider Rush Limbaugh to be like an Oprah Winfrey – a “true believer” with popular appeal but that’s about it. Limbaugh (and Bill O’Reilly for that matter) have presided in the media for the last 20 years, at least, and didn’t make a damn bit of difference IMO. They basically just explain what’s going on while it unfolds. Besides, Limbaugh in particular doesn’t have a lot of expertise or knowledge about anything that he talks about other than being pretty perceptive about how “liberals” (i.e., Washington/government) thinks. He probably doesn’t have a clue about how the monetary system works, or central banking, etc., and I know he doesn’t know jack about the financial system.

I agree that there isn’t going to be a “conservative” revival in the US, but mostly because most people don’t trust politicians to “walk the talk”, not because they wouldn’t like a smaller more Constitutionally constrained government.

Lastly, the ”top globalists” better either step up their incitations for chaos or slow down on the de-criminalization of recreational drugs because people are awfully close to tuning out and shutting down on just about everything, if they haven’t already. Maybe CNN should do a poll to find out just how indifferent most people are. I betcha most people wouldn’t even respond.

DB ARTICLES CAN BE SEEN ON A VARIETY OF ALTERNATIVE AND MAINSTREAM WEBSITES